Flak Magazine: 2004 Oscar Dialogue on The Lord of the Rings, 01.27.04

Though I tremendously enjoyed The Return of the King, I could never call it a great film because I know there will be an extended edition DVD coming soon that boasts, among other goodies, much more movie. And if history indeed repeats itself, that extended version will be better. This is good and bad. Good: I can see a more comprehensive film. Bad: Not only can I not see it where it was meant to be seen — a theater — but now there are twice as many films, confusing cultural memory. Sure, blockbuster multimedia synergy is all fun and profitable, and I'm sure some suit instrumental in greenlighting Dungeons & Dragons got a promotion out of it, but the de rigueur extended DVDs just scream "shameless marketing ploy," particularly for movies with sure-thing box office success. Three movies effectively become six. One adapted saga becomes two, each noticeably different in terms of drama and loyalty to the source. This is Bizarro World, Gollum schizo-territory. And for what? Money and little else. Polemic aside, it's artistically sad that the extended DVDs so far amount to better movies. If there is Best Picture recognition of Return of the King, it will more likely be due to market hoopla than to a great film, since chances are the truly great one won't see theatrical release.

Andy Ross | Many Happy Returns

OK, here's why you're wrong. This is a great film precisely because there will be an extended version on DVD. It's a great film because it works so well in the theater regardless of the following video games or action figures or learn-how-to-read CD-ROMs. The Return of the King is a Hollywood movie in the age of blockbusters, when all other media look to Hollywood to provide raw content. And that's what blockbusters normally do — give the rawest of content, bereft of narrative sense or emotional impact. Here, though, we get intricate plots woven together, moving dialogue (normally the bane of blockbusters) and emotionally affecting moments like Pippin singing to the Steward of Gondor as the latter's son rides to certain defeat. It's a great film because it exists both as a cohesive whole and as a text that can be added to later.

Specifically replying to the extended DVD argument: While we've taken to calling it home theater, television really is a vastly different medium than film. In a movie theater, you can't stand up to stretch, you can't lie down on a couch, you can't pause, you can't go to the bathroom. (Well, you can do the first and the last in a theater, but that doesn't mean you should.) So, in a movie theater, running time is a premium, as is pacing. Run time and pacing on DVD is luxurious in comparison. There's no real way of saying which version is better, because the pleasant digressions and informative subplots of the DVD wouldn't play well with a 12-year-old kicking the back of your seat for four hours. An extended version of Return of the King isn't a shameless marketing ploy. It's an artistic translation made by Peter Jackson, who knows that the two media are different, and who had final cut on both versions.

If there is Best Picture recognition of Return of the King, it will be because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences realizes that the film is all the better for creating something engrossing and meaningful on the big screen, something more than just the seed of a multimedia legacy.

Tony Nigro | One Cut to Rule Them All

Academy notwithstanding, an extended Return of the King — because we know there is one — is designed to trump what played in theaters. What's another 30 or 40 minutes in a three-and-a-half hour film, if it makes something great even better? Why not release that instead?

Dig: The surrender of Saruman — in terms of drama, a damn important moment — was cut from the theatrical version of Return of the King. The cut was even publicized to a degree. Think about that: Saruman's defeat is incomplete! The full demise of the series' face of evil wasn't deemed worthy to play in theaters. Because it was publicized, though, the scene will no doubt appear on the DVD, and we will feel compelled to shell out a few more bucks just to get the full story. Tell me again how that isn't a ploy.

Also, what you're saying about running time and pacing and 12-year-olds sound like excuses. In the pre-Jaws days, the days of those Hollywood movies you mentioned, audiences sat through and loved epics — Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, etc. Yes, there were also intermissions back then. But even in these blockbuster days hordes of people, including the impatient pimply crowd, flocked to theaters multiple times to see Titanic, and that's three hours that feels like 12. There is no reason audiences can't sit still for a few hours if they're truly involved in a movie. People unable to balance length and story probably tuned out early in The Fellowship of the Ring and daydreamed about reality TV. That's fine, they can watch it in pieces at home if they want, God bless America. But those who invested in and enjoyed the seven-plus combined hours of the first two films are apt to be loyal until the end, and they of all people shouldn't be short-changed a kick-ass theatrical experience. No matter who had final cut, I wouldn't expect Peter Jackson, hero to the fanboys, to stand for that. DVD has nothing to do with it.

That is, unless you consider DVD sales. The extended discs are gargantuan sellers, and on top of some fairly interesting documentaries, the real draw is the "never-before-seen" footage. People obviously want to see this stuff, and most of them, I would wager, also saw the movies in theaters. So, again, why not release only one cut?

I know, it's a silly rhetorical question. As usual, it's because of money. And fear. And love. Fear of money but also love of money. Precious, precious, precious money ….

Andy Ross | One Cut Indeed, But the Cut's Up Front

It's not just talking about run time. (Though, on the subject, another forty-five minutes would make Return of the King longer than Gone With the Wind or Lawrence of Arabia. And those movies were shown in grand movie house with lobbies that could accommodate an intermission and an audience with a median age above 20.) Pacing is even more important. It's one of the elements that has made the trilogy work so well so far, with its episodic, interweaving stories rolling downhill faster each film. It's also the thing that differs so much between the original versions and the two extended versions already out there. If asked why the director made any of the cuts, I'm sure he wouldn't say, "I'm keeping that great scene in my back pocket for the DVD." He'd say, "I'm trying to keep the movie clipping along." You can disbelieve that and insist it's a money issue, but here's the thing about film finance:

The reason film marketing and distribution are the way they are right now is because financiers want to make as much money as soon as possible. Their cut gets smaller as the weekends go by. Long-term investment in things like DVD sales and foreign market revenue (and that latter gets muddled with a world-wide release like Return of the King) are only really safety nets for the money people. Film is a high-risk investment, and with high risk, quick turnaround is important. If a film doesn't do well in the initial release, it doesn't do well in any of the subsequent markets. That's including original version DVDs or extended version DVDs or whatever. The way to make a film succeed — and I mean really succeed beyond a big opening weekend into second and third weekends of repeat viewings — is to make the best film you can for the big screen. It's not making something you know will be better on DVD.

I stand by my statement that an extended version wouldn't play as well in the theaters. Would I personally like to have seen the surrender of Saruman? Yes. But I know that the Saruman's influence in the book extends right up to the end, an end in the film that people agree is already a bit long. Things have to be cut in adaptations. You cut as little as you can for the theater and maybe put a little back on DVD, a medium with viewing conditions that allow for a little more wiggle room. What happens when you allow DVD pacing to creep onto the big screen? You get a slow-motion scene of the fellowship reuniting and hugging one at a time. Come on, pick it up. I can't pause to heat these nachos back up.

It seems strange that you would begrudge a movie for getting added to later. Is Almost Famous not as good of a movie because Untitled exists? Is Spider-Man not as good because a sequel is in the works? And, if it's about including as much of the Return of the King story as possible in one chunk, then why split up the trilogy at all? Extending your argument, The Lord of the Rings should have been one 12-hour film in the theaters. Making it separate films was just money grubbing.

Tony Nigro | It's The Godfather Meets Decalogue, With Hobbits

Yes! I knew we could agree on something. One story, one movie, one ticket! While we're at it, let's give it the chronological Godfather Saga treatment so it'll be more like the books. No one would go see it, but wouldn't it be cool?

I did some time in Hollywood, working in creative development and with the slumlords of foreign sales, so I hear you on all business counts. My answer: I don't care. Maybe I'm getting too personal about this, but rationalizing the movie business drives me mad. I could go on forever, but it'll never change. This is an argument consistently lost on my end.

I care very much about adding to movies, though, and have two stances on it. Sequels don't count, particularly if they have great source material ad infinitum, like Spider-Man. I'm all for deleted scenes and reconstructions that strive for the original vision, e.g. Walter Murch's Touch of Evil edit and Apocalypse Now Redux. The first two examples there, however, were restorations, so that's not even really "adding."

What frightens me is revisionism a la George Lucas, this bizarre need to make what's old new again. The wonderful possibilities of DVD unfortunately encourage it. You might agree. I mean, does anyone besides Lucas really think digital effects improved Star Wars? What about Spielberg doctoring walkie-talkies over guns in ET? It's not far off from banning books. And where does it end? Re-imaging the Klan members and blackface characters in Birth of a Nation? Hollywood shouldn't be able to pull Watergate cover-ups on movies. They're an undeniable part of history. But I'll grant that in this sense, the Rings discs have so far done respectably well.

Andy Ross | The Bag End

Your discussion of revisionism brings up an interesting question. If movies are indeed "an undeniable part of history," what is the cultural artifact there? The experience of watching the film in the theater is so fleeting. Do once-great films exist in history now only as wavy video tapes or pan-and-scan DVDs? And what happens when films are just high-speed downloads? It seems to me that movies have had this tricky redefinition whenever a new medium popped up, but the key experience has always been the one in the theater. That's why cable may have hurt, but never killed, going out to movies. That's why the updated versions will never replace the "real" Star Wars in people's minds. When we think of the impact movies have on our lives and on our culture, we think of the silver screen. We don't think of little discs.

I think we both agree on the importance of the movie theater version. You're saying that the theater experience is important enough that it deserves all the scenes, all the subplots. Heck, it may even deserve 12 hours of them. I'm saying that the theater experience is important enough that it should be able to define its own pacing and editing decisions, uninfluenced by the separate rules of DVD. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Either way, it's important to acknowledge in discussions like these that DVDs certainly have a growing influence on what a movie is. They're educating the general audience about the behind-the-scenes of filmmaking. They're probably affecting what goes in or gets cut from original releases. It will be interesting to see where that influence takes film. We'll have to wait and see.

E-mail Tony Nigro at tony@superheronamedtony.com.

E-mail Andy Ross at apross@earthlink.net.

— graphic by D.P. Barsam (barsam@hotpop.com)